Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32845990›Full record

ArticleRadiation research2020

Analysis of Cataract in Relationship to Occupational Radiation Dose Accounting for Dosimetric Uncertainties in a Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists.

Mark P Little, Ankur Patel, Nobuyuki Hamada, Paul Albert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mark P LittleRadiation Epidemiology Branch.
Ankur PatelRadiation Epidemiology Branch.
Nobuyuki HamadaRadiation Safety Research Center, Nuclear Technology Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Tokyo 201-8511, Japan.
Paul AlbertBiostatistics Branch, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9778.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cataract is one of the major morbidities in the U.S. population and it has long been appreciated that high and acutely delivered radiation doses of 1 Gy or more can induce cataract. Some more recent studies, in particular those of the U.S. Radiologic Technologists, have suggested that cataract may be induced by much lower, chronically delivered doses of ionizing radiation. It is well recognized that dosimetric measurement error can substantially alter the shape of the radiation dose-response relationship and thus, the derived study risk estimates, and can also inflate the variance of the estimates. In the current study, we evaluate the impact of uncertainties in eye-lens absorbed doses on the estimated risk of cataract in the U.S. Radiologic Technologists' Monte Carlo Dosimetry System, using both absolute and relative risk models. Among 11,345 cases we show that the inflation in the standard error for the excess relative risk (ERR) is generally modest, at most approximately 20% of the unadjusted standard error, depending on the model used for the baseline risk. The largest adjustment results from use of relative risk models, so that the ERR/Gy and its 95% confidence intervals change from 1.085 (0.645, 1.525) to 1.085 (0.558, 1.612) after adjustment. However, the inflation in the standard error of the excess absolute risk (EAR) coefficient is generally minimal, at most approximately 0.04% of the standard error.

Indexed as

Technology, RadiologicUncertaintyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCataractCohort StudiesDose-Response Relationship, RadiationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational ExposureRadiometryRisk FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32845990
PMCPMC10656143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.